New 1D Mark II N specs - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

08/27/2005 08:45:37 AM · #1

Wow EddyG. What an amazing website that is at Cambridge in Colour!

Sweet. Thanks!

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

08/26/2005 01:15:13 PM · #2

Smaller photosites also result in the camera being diffraction limited sooner.

On the above web page, hover over "�/11" to set the size of the airy disk. Now hover over "Canon EOS 1DMkII / 5D" and "Canon EOS 20D / 350D" to see the difference in photosite size. Notice that on the 1D Mk II / 5D, the airy disk fits almost entirely in the photosite. On the 20D / 350D, diffraction is just starting to occur as the airy disk extends into the surrounding photosites. As the aperture gets smaller, the effect gets more and more pronounced.

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 13:16:30.

08/26/2005 11:41:17 AM · #3

CVT said: not really that silly, spacing them would (in theory) produce less noise than making them larger.

I'm sorry cvt, and I'm sorry for the slight hijack, but I don't see how merely spacing pixels would decrease noise. Close pixels usually exacerbates the blooming problems of blown highlights. Spaced photosites that were not actually larger would lead to loss of fine detail.

Increasing the size of the photosites increases their light gathering ability, this affects their natural sensitivity without having to add anything (via ISO charge boosting which amplifies the signal of the photosite itself by flooding it with more electrons, hence multiplying inaccuracies and pixel value differences with a blanket adjustment).

The larger the photosite, the less noise you have naturally.

I hadn't looked for pixel pitch yet on the 1.3x 1d II sensor as it is still well out of my price range, but if it is indeed 8.4u, it will definitely have much better noise than the 20D naturally. This means less detail will be lost with the noise reduction and the sensor will be more versatile in taking pictures in lower light.

The 20D has very close pixels, but very low noise. This is not accomplished naturally, this is accomplished through wicked algorithms and very likely some clever noise mapping done in-factory.

I would imagine that the sensors of the 5D and the 1D II are pretty close in pixel pitch.

I really probably should have started my own thread. Sorry.

cvt_

08/26/2005 02:06:23 AM · #4

not really that silly, spacing them would (in theory) produce less noise than making them larger.

08/26/2005 01:09:39 AM · #5

No worries. It was a legitimate possibility that they had taken the same size photosites and merely spaced them out.

On the other hand, it would have been very silly.

08/25/2005 03:33:31 PM · #6

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by PaulMdx:
What kyebosh means is pixel density. IE. physical size of photosite.

The two are not the same.

That's kyebosh's point. :-)

My bad. Sorry guys, I was looking at the wrong white sheet.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

08/25/2005 03:32:06 PM · #7

heh, thanks paul!

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

08/25/2005 03:30:33 PM · #8

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by PaulMdx:
What kyebosh means is pixel density. IE. physical size of photosite.

The two are not the same.

That's kyebosh's point. :-)

08/25/2005 03:17:55 PM · #9

the original quote was about the sensor sites not the pixels you'll see on the computer. there is a significant difference between the two cameras.

08/25/2005 03:13:56 PM · #10

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

What kyebosh means is pixel density. IE. physical size of photosite.

The two are not the same.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

08/25/2005 03:13:50 PM · #11

the 1DII has 8.2µm
the 20D has 6.4µm much more compact.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

08/25/2005 03:10:54 PM · #12

What kyebosh means is pixel density. IE. physical size of photosite.

08/25/2005 03:10:45 PM · #13

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by eschelar:
Additionally, it would feature significantly bigger pixels than the 20D's.

The pixel size I think is the same for the two cameras.

No, the 20D is by far the most dense of any of the canon DSLR's.

But the pixel size is the same.

no that is not correct.

Why not?

08/25/2005 03:09:09 PM · #14

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by eschelar:
Additionally, it would feature significantly bigger pixels than the 20D's.

The pixel size I think is the same for the two cameras.

No, the 20D is by far the most dense of any of the canon DSLR's.

But the pixel size is the same.

no that is not correct.

Message edited by author 2005-08-25 15:09:28.

08/25/2005 03:07:00 PM · #15

Originally posted by kyebosh:

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by eschelar:
Additionally, it would feature significantly bigger pixels than the 20D's.

The pixel size I think is the same for the two cameras.

No, the 20D is by far the most dense of any of the canon DSLR's.

But the pixel size is the same.

08/25/2005 03:05:50 PM · #16

Originally posted by nsbca7:

Originally posted by eschelar:
Additionally, it would feature significantly bigger pixels than the 20D's.

The pixel size I think is the same for the two cameras.

No, the 20D is by far the most dense of any of the canon DSLR's.

08/25/2005 03:02:29 PM · #17

Originally posted by eschelar:

Additionally, it would feature significantly bigger pixels than the 20D's.

The pixel size I think is the same for the two cameras.

08/25/2005 02:55:38 PM · #18

I'm really not interested in the 5D. I like the crop and would prefer to keep the 1.6. But I want a verticle grip, more buffer, faster fps, and 8.2MP is about right for me. Imagine the CF cards you need to buy to shoot with a 12.8MP camera, not to memtion how much slower processing all the RAW images will be compared to 8.2MP's. For me it may be worth it if 20x30 inch prints were what I made on a daily basis, but to look at the images on a monitor or to make occassional 8x10 or 11x14 or so sized prints, the negative don't outweigh the positives. I really like the larger LCD size so I'm hoping that the IIN will sell for under $3999 MSRP. How does $3200 or less sound since current II's are selling for about $700-800 under their $4499 MSRP.
BTW, am I crazy or does a silver bodied IIN look better. Here is an unpainted IIN image.
//www.dpreview.com/news/0508/Canon/1diin-02.jpg

Message edited by author 2005-08-25 15:00:38.

08/25/2005 09:34:36 AM · #19

I was actually just about to post a thread about who was more excited about the 1d IIN or the 5D.

I feel that an 8MP cam with at 1.3x crop factor with 8.5fps is pretty damned exciting. The cam can't use EF-S lenses, but the ones I have been eyeing aren't EF-S anyhow, so whatever. The 1.3x crop would likely provide a really nice combination of improvement on lens zoom, corner brightness and quality and bigger physical pics. Additionally, it would feature significantly bigger pixels than the 20D's.

It likely has had a chip upgrade as well (firmware is probably not enough to improve FPS), meaning the noise reduction is probably as good as the 20D. Combine this with bigger pixels and you have sweetness!

I'd go for this over the 5D for sure. I don't pretend to think that a Bayer interpolated at 13MP can match medium format to the point where it can print REALLY big stuff, so the 1d MkIIN would totally be my choice.

Weatherproofing is cool too.

08/24/2005 12:03:54 PM · #20

Just checked Canon USA's website. The Mark II is gone and the Mark IIN is up with a note below it saying available in September. I just checked the price of the Mark II's on shopping.com and the prices seem the same. I guess so far atleast, the II's won't be any cheaper. Perhaps after September, things may change. I'm hoping in a few months the street price of the IIN's will drop below the MSRP of $3999 as well.

Message edited by author 2005-08-24 12:04:59.

08/23/2005 12:46:01 AM · #21

Originally posted by yido:

I'm not expecting any IID owner to sell it to get the IIN. Of the ones selling their II's for whatever reason, I'm expecting the price to drop. As for new II's price, I don't know what will happen. I'll probably make my decision in a few months. I can fortunately wait as my DR still cliks away.

They took a poll at MF and about 1/6 of the people with 1DII's said they would upgrade. Not a lot... but some.

08/23/2005 12:35:18 AM · #22

08/23/2005 12:19:07 AM · #23

get the 1DII original used after the prices drop a bit. Don't expect many more sellers than usual though, not many will dump their current cam for these mostly minor upgrades.

08/23/2005 12:09:00 AM · #24

Originally posted by yido:

I'm deciding wheather I should get the 1D MII/N or the 20D with a grip. The fact that the MSRP of the IIN is $3999 vs MII's $4499 is intriguing to me. Will the IIN lower the price of new and used II down further? Right now new II's are selling for just over $3500 (about a grand less than MSRP). Does that mean in a little while new IIN's will be about $3000? In which case, what will the price of used II's be in about 6 months? $2000? My mind is going in a swirl with the possibilities, a used II? New II as the price falls, wait for the IIN's price to fall?

In about ten years you will be able to get a good used 1D IIN for about $400. I'll be shooting while you wait.